Could Kovalev go .500 against these 12 LHWs of Classic Past?

The bout would have been called even if that last blow was never thrown. The fight was over.

 

No blow at any time hit Kovalev in the balls. Balls are WAYYYY below the beltline area.

 

They shoulda stopped the Klitschko / AJ fight in the 6th. That fight was OVER.

 

No, neither Wlad or AJ were looking the exit.

 

Not comparable. Kovalevs body language and cowering and constant retreating and staggering all led the the stoppage. NOT the last hook to the body where the ref already had decided to stop the fight. Kovalev was giving the impression he no longer wanted to be in the ring.

 

^opinion.

 

How are Kovalev's fouls irrelevant for anyone who's unbiased? A foul is a foul you say, whether marginal or blatant. Kovalev's rabbit punches were fouls so they should by your logic be punished.

Now if we take into account whether the alleged could was damaging or not (which I think we should), then it does mean a lot if it's a marginal foul or blatant. So what is it, is a foul a foul or should we take into account whether a foul actually does any damage or not?

In Ward's case I'm far from sure the last punch was a foul at all and it certainly didn't look damaging.

 

If Kovalev lands early he can get anybody out. He hits that hard. That right hand is a missile and he can dual wield and time his shots pretty well.

The problem is he's a 6 round fighter. His stamina just isn't that good or at least it's not very good in mid 30s. I suspect back in his actual prime like the time he burst onto the world scene and blew up Cleverly that wouldn't be as much of a problem. Sad that we never got to see him much in his youth.

But I see people writing this guy off when that's not a wise thing to do.

 

But you said above that it doesn't matter if the foul is marginal or blatant. I e if it's actually damaging or not. All that's matters is if it's a foul or not. Well, by that logic it doesn't matter when it occurred.

But if you indeed recognize that it makes a difference whether a foul actually the damages the one who receives it then we should look to the follow thing in this scenario:

1. Was it even a foul? (doubtful imo)
2. If it was, did it do damage (very doubtful imo, since if it was indeed a foul it was so marginal that it shouldn't have done any extra damage really and the punch also lacked leverage)

 

I must say that I can't remember any overacting like the one Kovalev did from a non-leveraged punch in a clinch. He bent double from a tap that whether low or not was far from any area that gets affected like that, for christ sake. Never seen anything like it I think.

 

A foul is a foul. Every foul should be addressed one way or another. Warning, point deduction, DQ. There are different levels to a foul. I saw Kovalev with some rabbit punches and the ref should have warned him and then deducted a point if it continued. Ward was continually hitting Kovalev borderline low all fight long. The ref did nothing. You need to tell him to keep it up. Then he doubles Kovalev over with a clear low blow. The bottom line is it was low. If Kovalev had actually gone down that's a clear point deduction and you need to give Kovalev time to recover. And in the actual fight Kovalev was hurt bad by the low blow to the point that the ref decided to stop it. But you shouldn't stop a fight on an illegal punch. Isn't there a purpose to having refs? You can't stop a fight on an illegal blow. Ward should have been deducted a point.

 

he said no mas in russian

 

The only behavior out of the norm I witnessed was Kovalev bending over double from a punch, whether low or not, couldn't possibly have done any damage.

 

Kovalev were already doubled up by punches that definitely weren't low. Those did the damage. The last punch, whether low or not, was certainly the least hurtful in that whole barrage.

 

Bull****. Then you haven't watched much boxing.

This content is protected